Radiation Monitor at Nuke Plant Malfunctions; everyone in Ohio will die.

[NNadir]

http://channels.attbusiness.net/index.cfm?fuseAction=viewNewsArticle&nav_id=33&category_name=National&article_id=210a3e4bcd79d25865f003133377c78e

As with my similar post about an unusual event at a nuclear power plant in Germany, the nuclear event mentioned here at the Perry nuclear plant in Ohio and the future death of everyone in the surrounding area are not related.

I did want to make though a statement of my continuing admiration for our media which loudly reports the faulty reading of every gauge that might have the words “radioactive” or “nuclear” connected with it, even if no one is injured, much less killed.

Of course I have complained in the past about our media’s complete indifference to deaths, even large numbers of deaths, associated with other energy or industrial operations. We can only hope that in the future our media will be as vigilant in the future about other industries as they are about the nuclear industry.

[lil-petunia]

1. The mudia knows how to sling outrageous fortunes,

pity that their crystal balls are cracked. When it is a pleasant rarity to find a scientifically trained reporter, one who actually understands every third word he is reporting on, the you know we are in bad shape.

[seventhson]

2. Rebuttal Links for the Halliburton-impaired

(Cheney/Halliburton's KBR is one of the biggest purveyor's of the myth that nukes are safe as kittens and anyone who opposes them is as mad as a hatter - they are one of the largest nuke engineering firms too so they like to keep the bad PR to a minimally acceptable dose))

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/INTRFCE_GIFS/radiation_fallout/radiation_131.html (You can check on your exposure here)

You can get estimates of the damage to you and your loved ones from other than "official" sources here:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

for more info on how to have your chilsdren tested for nuclear exposure (which might explain their chronic fatigue, adhd and other hormone related problems, inter alia, or your own fibromyalgia, fatigue and chronic gland problems - not to mention why your parents may have died of cancer and some of your friends too):

www.radiation.org

[NNadir]

3. And now for the scientifically impaired we'll quickly open the second

"official" link and quickly discover, after wading through large amounts of tripe written in legalese that the so called "European Committee on Radiation Risk" was founded because they didn't like the conclusions of the United Nations and European community which differed from their conclusion that 61,000,000 people have died from radiation since 1945.

Now, one might think that the United Nations would have noticed the deaths of a number of people that is greater than 8 times the 1999 population of Switzerland, but it would appear that we needed the "European Committee on Radiation Paranoia" whoops I mean the European Committee on Radiation Risk," to tell us. Thank goodness! Some might quibble with the fact that the "European Committee on Radiation Paranoia" whoops I mean the European Committee on Radiation Risk," fails to cite one reference from a refereed journal, or even on reference from the World Weekly News or any other source, for it's rather extraordinary claim. I guess we'll just have to take their word for it though, because they do indeed sound very "official" and have a very official sounding name.

I would assume that the tens of millions of missing glowing bodies have all been covered up by the same people who have been debriefing the Roswell aliens since the 1940's.


The first reference cited, as is typical with the confusion that arises from those who have at best a very primitive or a very paranoid view of radiation, references I-131 releases from nuclear bomb tests.

To a person who knows the difference between a nuclear bomb test in the open atmosphere and a nuclear reactor operating under controlled conditions, such a comparison would seem somewhat like desperatly grasping at straws to make a religion based claim, but if nothing else, the absurdity is telling.

[seventhson]

4. I'm rubber, you're glue

talk about telling absurdity

of course you do not "glow' when you are irradiated: mostly with cancer you just rot and decay.

Both nuclear bomb tests and nuclear power plants release radioactivity into the open atmosphere ( from their stacks and from theri liquid effluent pipes and storage facilities into the groundwater.

YOU know this is true and yet you act as if it is not.

If your qualifications are BETTER than the scientific panel which I site then go ahead and tell us what they are - but since this is an anonymous board who will know the difference.

at least at the places I cite (like the national cancer institute where americans can go and find out what they have ALREADY been exposed to by your beloved nuke industry) have credentials.

www.radiation.org has some of the top scientists and epidemiologists in the field along with MD's and other experts working with them.

I trust them.

everyone else is free to ignore or deny whatever they want to. But if you think you can trust the nuke industry and its sponsors, then I pity you.

[Bdog]

5. Radioactive Quack Cures

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm

Byers was the founder of the A.M. Byers Company, one of the world's largest steel companies. In 1928, the Pittsburgh industrialist and one-time U.S. amateur golf champion (1906) injured himself on a party train following a Harvard-Yale football game. At the recommendation of his doctor, he began drinking Radithor, and he continued to do so long after the injury healed - he averaged three bottles a day for two years. Byers stopped consuming Radithor in 1930 when his teeth started falling out and holes appeared in his skull. Perhaps more than anything else, his death in 1932 alerted the public, and much of the medical profession, of the harmful effects of "mild" radium therapy.
For additional details, see "The Great Radium Scandal" by Roger Macklis in the August 1993 issue of Scientific American.



Exposure Rates: ca. 2 uR/hr above background at one foot, ca. 35 uR/hr above background on contact.

http://www.assistivemedia.org/amrams/GreatRadiumScandal.ram

[seventhson]

12. Thank you for making my point so effectively (and better than I seem to

be able to.

The nuclear promoters are relentless on these left wing boards.

They act like they have something to urgently conceal.

[PVnRT]

40. You're in a distinct minority here

I've already tried barking up this tree, but no one around here will listen to anything other than "Nuclear plants will kill us all!"

[treepig]

6. about those children the radiation.org people tested

remind me again what their level of "man-made" radiation was?

oh, thank god i saved my notes from the last time you posted in the LBN forum so i can answer that myself (see further below).

apparently, according to the good folk/imbeciles at radiation.org, strontium-90 - spewed forth from those ungodly nuclear power plants - has been causing an epidemic of childhood cancers in the usa over the past decade.

what is really strange - based on your world-view - is that childhood cancer rates are also soaring in new zealand.

see http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-05-19.htm

now how can that possibly be happening, since very few (i believe no) new zealand children live 50-miles (or less) down-wind of a commercial power plant.

the tiny-quantities-of-manmade-radiation-is-killing-everyone theory is also debunked by the simple fact that lots of naturally-occuring radioisotopes are found in one's body (based on a 70,000 g person):

Nuclide
Total Steady-state Mass of Nuclide Found in the Body
Total Activity of Nuclide Found in the Body
Daily Intake of Nuclides

Uranium 90 µg 30 pCi (1.1 Bq) 1.9 µg
Thorium 30 µg 3 pCi (0.11 Bq) 3 µg
Potassium 40 17 mg 120 nCi (4.4 kBq) 0.39 mg
Radium 31 pg 30 pCi (1.1 Bq) 2.3 pg
Carbon 14 95 µg 0.4 µCi (15 kBq) 1.8 µg
Tritium 0.06 pg 0.6 nCi (23 Bq) 0.003 pg
Polonium 0.2 pg 1 nCi (37 Bq) ~0.6 µg

from: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

note that due to their chemical properties, K40, C14, and H3 all are incorporated into cells and their components, much like the chemical properties of strontium 90 lead to ins incorporation into teeth and bones.

interestingly (but not surprisingly) the radiation.org site does not prominently display the amount of strontium foun in children's teeth (and presumably bones). but, if you're persistent, you can find that it's about 160 mBq per gram of calcium by reading some of their more obscure links (which happen to link to their peer-reviewed journal articles - in which their sensationist claims have for some reason have disappeared). anyhow, the body is about 1.5% calcium by mass, so that means the 70,000 g person would have about 1 kg of calcium, which would mean the maximum body burden of radiation due to "man-made" strontium would be about 160 Bq. but, by totalling the natural level of radiation indicated above, the "man-made" component is 160 Bq compared to ~19,500 Bq of "natural" radiation - and appears rather insignificant in comparison. in this case, i submit that it's more or less common sense that if the body defend itself against 20,000 units of natural radiation, it will not even notice the over 100-fold lower level of "man-made" radiation.

[NNadir]

7. Oh well, this baby teeth thing goes way back.

Here is some questions I asked my antagonist way back in 2001, in post #39 on this thread on another site (SmirkingChimp). The questions asked here were in response to an announcement by my current antagonist that he (she or it) was an "expert" on radiation because he was able to link to the website of www.radiation.org, where unfortunately, they don't seem to know anything at all about radiation.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=4555&forum=3&start=25

"Please explain to me, if you're so smart what the specific activity of Sr-90 is and how to calculate it. It's relatively easy for a 2nd year physics student (indeed many high school physics students to give the exact time that 1 mole of Sr-90 will decay to 1 Bq. Compare the radiological hazards of the two fission products Sr-90 and Eu-154. Please state that time is. What is the fission yield of Sr-90 and what is the likely concentration of Sr-90 as opposed to other isotopes in a sample of Strontium isolated from U-235 with fast neutrons and with thermalized neutrons. Explain what a thermalized neutron is. How does the fission spectrum vary as the fissioned actinide increases in atomic number? Which isotopes would you expect to be fissionable and why? What is the difference between a pure beta emitter like Sr-90 and a pure gamma emitter such as Ba-137m? How is it that Ba-137m with a half life of of 2.25 minutes represents a more dangerous radiological hazard than Sr-90 with a half life of 28.1 years. Why is Cs-135 amenable to transmutation strategies whereas Sr-90 and Pd-107 not. Why is it unimportant to transmute Sr-90 as compared to I-129. What is Xenon? How was Xenon a factor in the Chernobyl disaster. Why is that Ba-137m with such a short half found in the environment today as a consequence of 1950's nuclear tests? Also explain the effects of complexation on the ingestion of radionuclides. Why can someone swallow 500 grams of Barium sulfate for an x-ray when Barium is toxic at the milligram level? How does the answer to this question about Barium bear on the Sr ingestion? Please discuss intelligently modes of ingestion, solubility of Sr is geological systems, and the forms that Sr must take in order that it can be absorbed my the mammalian digestive tract. What tissues other than bones would you expect Sr to concentrate in and why? If the half-life of free Sr-90 is 28.1 years in the free state, what is its half life in various human tissues in which it concentrates? What are the geochemical hazards of Tc-99? Describe with your vast insight into the subject exactly how one would extract and distinguish the epidemiological consequences of Sr-90 ingestion from dental x-rays, from ionizing radiation on transcontinental plane flights, from Radon releases from coal ash, from benzopyrenes and benzofulvenes in particulate pollution from fossil fired plants. What is the impact of natural gas on global warming? What are the thermodynamic restrictions on the use of biomass as energy, and what are the world's potential resources in this area?

Propose strategies for disposing of the extant 1000 MT of plutonium without using nuclear power. How will Geological disposal impact the isotopic composition of reactor grade plutonium in 1000 years? In 25,000 years? Tell me how you're going to provide basic food and heat for the billions on this planet without nuclear power and without risk to a single living human being. What will be the carrying capacity of the planet tomorrow if we abandon all forms of energy that represent a risk to anyone. How many people will have to drop dead in the next month in order to adjust the population to that new capacity."

I never got an answer to these questions from my radiation baby tooth strontium obsessed friend. I very much doubt that this person I asked these questions back then is in any way more competent to answer them three years later than he (she or it) was prepared to do back then, but we will see if there's been any education occurring in the last three years.

Happily or unhappily, many of the people on that thread at SmirkingChimp were later banned from that site on the grounds that SmirkingChimp did not wish to become a website for conspiracy theorists. That said, in fairness to my antagonists, I will mention that I have more or less resigned -though I haven't been banned - from SmirkingChimp. This was on political grounds. SmirkingChimp to my mind has declared the equivalence of the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry and Ralph Nader the ersatz "independent" Republican. I hate Ralph Nader almost as much as his puppeteer Cheney, and have - for better or worse - moved to DU, where the owners clearly endorse John Kerry, just as I do.

Now let's address some new quiz questions for our radiation informed Strontium-in-baby-teeth-friend, which follow:


The earth contains 3 billion tons of Uranium. Why does this imply that the total inventory on the earth of the radioactive element radium is thus slightly under 1100 metric tons? The half-life of Radium-226 is 1610 years. Why will the inventory of Radium-226 nonetheless remain slightly under 1100 metric tons in 1610 years and not half of this value? Explain the calculation methods you have used to arrive at this figure. Why is it immediate obvious that 1100 metric tons of radium is the equivalent of 1,100,000,000 curies of radiation? (For this explanation, one should not assume an equilibrium, even though the equilibrium value would make the radiation as measured in curies very much higher.) Next explain the consequences of cute little babies eating Radium. In what organs of cute little babies would this material concentrate and why? Compare this organ distribution property with Strontium. Explain how you would differentiate in a radiochemical analysis between contamination with Strontium-90 and Radium-226 in cute little baby teeth. What would be the consequences and effects of contamination on such an analysis if the sample were contaminated with Radium-227 or Radium-224? Referring to the answers to my questions of three years ago, why would you be unlikely to detect contamination with Barium-137m, even though Barium-137m exhibits similar chemistry to Strontium. Why would you expect that in spite of the lack of detection, Barium-137m would be likely to be found wherever Strontium-90 was found? How would such contamination be explained? Considering the last question, calculate the likely worldwide inventory of Radium-224, assuming at 10 to 1 ratio of Thorium to Uranium naturally occuring in crustal formations including the hydrosphere. Why is one gram of Radium-224 more dangerous than 100 kg of Radium-226? Why is one gram of Radium-227 infinitely more dangerous than one metric ton of Strontium-90?

The total quantity of commercial spent nuclear fuel in the United States will be around 75,000 metric tons by the end of this decade. Show that of this 75,000 metric tons, the quantity that is represented by Strontium 90 is less than 130 metric tons. Finally, what is the volume represented by 130 metric tons of strontium? What percentage of this Strontium has been released into the general environment? Of the fraction not released into the environment, where does it now reside? What is the total energy output of 1100 metric tons of Radium-226 and the total output of Strontium-90? Assume equilibrium with daughter nuclides in the decay chains of each element, excepting those which will not reach an equilibrium state in an ordinary human life span, assuming 70 years for this value. Identify excluded elements.

For the requisite constants and data, half-lives, fission yields, and decay energies you should refer to the Kaeri website, with which, as a nuclear expert, you are in no doubt familiar. (As an expert, you undoubtedly know that BNL no longer maintains this data, probably because of budget cuts.) Densities, where required, can be found from the many fine periodic table websites. I prefer webelements. I'm sure that you will need no help because you are an expert, but the relevant formulas for these calculations can be found in many elementary undergraduate physics textbooks.

As always, I look forward to the direct answers to my questions. Just to be clear, a link to www.radiation.org or www.ratical.org will not constitute an answer. Neither will a link to the official sounding website of the "European Commission on whatever frightens me about the word 'radiation'."

[Kool Kitty]

8. May I ask what is probably a dumb question?

What is BNL?

[treepig]

9. to nitpick, i believe it's actually BLNL

the Berkeley Lawrence National Laboratory

anyhow, i think this is the website they used to host that has fairly comprehensive list of nuclides (which i unfortunately couldn't find when another poster in this forum repeated claimed to know what an isotope was, and then immediately stated that hydrogen-1, carbon-12, oxygen-16 (et al) were not isotopes):

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/

(btw, budget cutbacks must be pretty severe if they can't afford the bandwidth to keep this information online anymore - can't imagine they get all that many hits).

[Kool Kitty]

32. Thanks, treepig.

[NNadir]

37. Brookhaven, not Berkeley Lawrence, used to maintain a Table of Nuclides.

which requires frequent updating. I think our government has fired It's probably not the bandwidth, but the nature of the site,many of the syndics who do such things because of the expense of our fun in Iraq. My company, for instance, is next door to a USGS office responsible for maintaining a working knowledge of the underground flows and quality of drinking water. Naturally, they are all in extreme danger of losing their jobs.

BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory - not Berkeley Lawrence), which used to maintain the US Table of Nuclides, does not provide link the Kaeri (Korean) site. I think Scientists, especially nuclear engineers, all over the world use the Kaeri site. I know I go there frequently.

Nuclear engineering is still a displine taught in the United States, and graduates in the field are very, very highly paid, as they should be for maintaining 20% of our nation's electrical supply.

It happens that the nuclear industry provides exactly the kind of jobs we should desire in a growing economy, high tech, high productivity jobs requiring an educated citizenry.

In countries that have increasingly scientifically literate populations, China and India come to mind, as well as Japan, France and Russia, nuclear engineering is a burgeoning field, as it should be if we are going to save our atmosphere from total destruction.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

16. have you read the peer-reviewed articles?

they do not make the claims presented on the website (which obviously they can't, or they never would be approved for publication).

basically, the peer-reviewed articles simply present the finding that, by using the incredibly sophisticated analytical instrumental available today, extremely small levels of "man-made" radioisotopes have been found in children's teeth.

further, these levels apparently increased during the 1990s.

beyond that, everything is speculation. for example, no cause and effect relationship has been remotely established between the tooth studies and the increase in some childhood cancers that was observed during in the 1990s. but, since radiation is involved, it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel to set up a website and get people all riled up.

perhaps i'll set up a website and correlate the rise in childhood cancers during the 1990s with any or all of the following:

1)increased cumulative exposure to episodes of seinfeld - a completely man-made comedy that was poorly appreciated by even very intelligent mammals such chimps, pigs, or dolphins.

2) the introduction of the internet to the general public.

3) the clinton administration.

4) sv40-contaminated polio vaccines (to be honest, this one's not mine - it has other proponents here at DU).

5) the increasing distance of the voyager spacecraft from planet earth.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibLabUK]

27. Vaccines

"sv40-contaminated polio vaccines (to be honest, this one's not mine - it has other proponents here at DU)."

I actually went looking for anti-immunisation 'info' on that radiation.org site. They appear to use a lot of the same techniques as the anti-Immunisation crowd (publishing books instead of papers, playing up their irrelevant qualifications..etc). I especially liked their assertion that they alone are doing this research and that their lone stand against the establishment is a validation of their 'rightness'.

[seventhson]

30. I do not know what site you were reading

but it was surely not the one I linked

I just hope that people will read the info and do their own assessment instead of believing anonymous posters here whose agendas (including my own) are unknown.

[seventhson]

33. i disagree

many of the answers to your questions are found at these sites.
but since my more detailed answer was deleted I will just ask folks to educate themse;ves and do not buy the hype of the nuclear proponents.

[seventhson]

10. Strontium 90 is absorbed by trhe bones - it mimics calcium - then it

gets into the bone marrow and into the bloos where it decays into, I believe radiocesium, where it is then absorbed into the reproductive organs and endocirne glands and other soft tissues causing damage, cancer, and immuine system damage , inter alia.


I am at least glad that some one finally admits that there are peer reviewed articles linked. This is one of the false talking point critiques (that there are no peer reviewed articles at radiation.org)

you cliam that you don't see the possibility of greater harm from strontium-90 than from some naturally occurring radioactive element in our lives. This is where the experts I have cited will help for those in doubt.

This man made radionucleide is in the bone marrow and blood (BECAUSE it mimics cal;cium) and is absorbed, unlike some other elements which are passed through the system damagaing little if any tissue. When it is distributed to the soft tissue (the uterus or ovaries or breast tissue or pituitary gland or the brain or the prostate) it is then absorbed into THAT soft tissue and during the decay process causes mutagenic and carcinogenic damage (and simple damagae too by killing off cells that produce certain hormones, for example)

It is distressing that you would defend this and try to minimize it. In the estimation of scientists I trust and doctors who are well credentialled the damage to our children and families is devastating.

You can defensd it and minimize it all sday long if you want. That is your karma to live with.

it is difficult and painful enough to comprehend as it is for most people. I have no vested interest in this other than seeing the truth come out and protecting humanity from crooks like Cheney and Bush who are nuke industry pimps.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seventhson]

15. Your premise fails

I NEVER asserted that the other radio-elements you mention are safe.

What the project is measuring is Strontium -90 which has a half life of 28 years (meaning a full radioactive decay life of something like 150 years in the body and corpse later) and is measurable in baby teeth and bones. Teeth are easy to test as they fall out (Bone must be extracted from corpses which few cancer victims want).

I do not believe you can measure the other exposures in soft tissue (that is why the baby teeth study is such a strong study)

But I never claimed the other elements were SAFE, for Christ's sake!

I think there is a likely cumulative danger from ALL these radioelements. The nuke plants produce nuclear radionucleide cocktails containing like 130 some elements when they produce energy. Some have short half lives and others very long ones (millions of years) NONE of them are safe in my estimation and therefore the plants are DAMGEROUS and must be shut down for the safety and survival of humanity as we know it.

[treepig]

17. so your premise is that everyone is in grave danger

merely by being alive on a planet where natural radioisotopes such as C-14, K-40, or U-238 for that matter, are ubiquitous and plentiful.

ok, whatever - but for those who might actually be interested in how we cope, a succint explanation is found at



WHY LOW-LEVEL RADIATION CAN’T CAUSE CANCER

We all live in a sea of natural radioactivity —cosmic radiation pouring in from outer space and naturally radioactive materials in our soil, building materials, food and water. The body cannot distinguish "manmade" radiation from "natural" radiation; in both cases the nuclear particles arise from the same processes and have the same characteristics. And our bodies are impacted by some 15,000 nuclear rays or particles every second — over a billion such events every day of our lives from these natural sources.But our bodies face even greater challenges: For example, a million DNA nucleotides in each cell are damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism resulting from routine eating and breathing. Radiation causes more double breaks per event in the DNA than metabolism does, and these are harder to repair than single breaks; but even after making generous allowance for this difference, the mutations (unrepaired or misrepaired damage) from metabolism outnumber those caused by natural radiation by ten-million-fold.

more . . .


http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm

[seventhson]

19. I guess we can trust lfr, inc. , huh?

THEY wouldn't want anybody to worry about such things, eh?


General Information or Other Event Number: 40471
Rep Org: MA RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Licensee: LFR, INC.
Region: 1
City: BRAINTREE State: MA
County:
License #: 49-0143
Agreement: Y
Docket:
NRC Notified By: BRUCE PACKARD
HQ OPS Officer: MIKE RIPLEY Notification Date: 01/23/2004
Notification Time: 16:10
Event Date: 01/22/2004
Event Time: 17:20
Last Update Date: 01/23/2004
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
AGREEMENT STATE
Person (Organization):
CLIFFORD ANDERSON (R1)
LAWRENCE KOKAJKO (NMSS)


Event Text

AGREEMENT STATE REPORT - STOLEN NUCLEAR GAUGE

"The Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) who works for LFR Inc. of Braintree, MA reported his personal pick up truck stolen while on an errand at a gas station-mart in Providence, RI. His pick up truck contained a 4 x 2 foot case which contained his Niton XL series Xray florences gauge which contains about 14 millicuries Cd-109 byproduct material. He left his pick up truck unlocked, and keys on seat, while he went into mart for purchase.

"RI state police were notified of theft, and they reported theft to MA state police at approx 5:17 PM on 1/22/04. MA state police in turn notified a MA radiation control officer at home at approx. 5:30 PM who then notified his MA Radiation Control Supervisor. At 9:39 on 1/23/04 AM, the supervisor notified the RI Radiation Program by e mail that theft had occurred.

"A MA radiation control officer, called the RSO at approx. 10:30 AM and 1:50 PM and was told vehicle had not been recovered yet. The RSO was asked to fax MA RCP a copy of police theft report and copy of RI radioactive license, and to call us if vehicle is recovered. The RSO lives in RI. The RSO said he would perform a leak test if tester is ever recovered.

"MA sent email to RI Radioactive Materials Program at 2:45 PM with status. Immediate notification requirement means complete investigation is pending."

[seventhson]

20. figures they are homeland security types too

http://www.aanko.com/company/partners.htm

[treepig]

22. i'm completely baffled as to the point you're making

are you concerned about the theft of devices containing radio-isotopes?

if so, here's another horrific crime to add to your list:

March 16, 1998 – (Theft) – Someone removed a smoke detector from it’s mount in the second floor hallway of Madonna Hall. Officers responded to the alarm caused by the removal of the smoke detector . The stolen smoke detector was replaced

http://acad.udallas.edu:8080/~cso/mar98.html

OK, so the stolen smoke detector was replaced - but no mention was made of efforts to recover the missing smoke detector, which we learn

Smoke alarms in homes and in industry use the radioisotope Americium-241 with a half-life of around 460 years.

http://www.newcastle-schools.org.uk/nsn/chemistry/Radioactivity/Uses%20of%20Radioactive%20Materials%20Page.htm

people - this radioactive device is still out there and missing!!! quite likely it's damaged and spewing isotopes into the living spaces of the innocent and unsuspecting. further investigation revealed that this incident took place in or near dallas texas, right in the backyard of the bfee and halliburton. clearly, a massive cover-up/conspiracy of some type is afoot and/or in the offing.

be afraid, very afraid!

:scared:

[seventhson]

25. The difference is that that was from thr NRC Incident reports

and so it was serious enough to merit reporting. My pooint is that the company you cite does nuclear and homeland security contracting for the govcernment and OF COURSE they are going to produce and.or distribute repoorts that say what they do is safe.

It is like asking Cheney if Halliburton cheats on its contracts.

It is unreliable as a source because of a conflict of interest.

The anti-nuke folks do not have billions of dollars of profits at risk like the proponents of nukes do.

[treepig]

26. as far as i can ascertain

the only "reputable" scientists in your view are those who are affiliatied with radiation.org (correct if i'm wrong, but i seem to recall that the nih, and anyone it funds, is also a shill (exactly of what i'm not sure, but evil nevertheless).

ultimately, "truth" comes down to the information presented, not the presenter. i have yet to see you counter any of the information that i (or others) have been presented with actual facts - just with vague references to a website where there is a lot of misleading information. whether it's misleading due to the sincere mental deficiencies of it authors, or through blatant fraud/mis-representation - who knows?

[seventhson]

29. A link is not a vague reference

I cite my sources and the info is there for anyone to read

the info is there and people are smart enough to evaluate it on their own.

I urge people to familiarize themselves with this and not ignore it as their health and their progeny's lives are on the line.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seventhson]

31. moronic stuff???

I guess doctors and scientists who feel radiation is dangerous are moronic and those who think it is safe are geniuses.

[NNadir]

36. OOOOO Boy.

Strontium decays in to radiocesium counselor? If you have discovered this, I think you may qualify for a Nobel prize.

Didn't you tell us that you were an expert on radiation and nuclear technology and that you felt in a position to lecture us on what technology is safe and which is not. You feel qualified to lecture us on what is and is not a peer reviewed article?

Once again you must resort to guilt by association (meaning that you have not bothered to open the website I provided earlier on "logical fallacies") by evoking Cheney and Bush. I will submit the following argument: Cheney and Bush are demonizing the nuclear industry by appealing, with the help of abysmally ignorant people who don't understand radiation on even the most primitive level, to the notion that that by simply saying the word "Uranium" you can justify going into other people's countries and kill them in huge numbers, tens upon tens of thousands. They could not do this without the help of scientifically illiterate people who prattle on loudly about subjects on which they know nothing. If, on the other hand, we had a scientifically literate population, such an absurdity as used by Bush-Cheney about the "Niger Uranium" purchases would be impossible. I for instance knew it was complete bullshit on the first day I saw it.

Now Counselor, I have asked you to explain the differences in chemistry between Strontium-90 and Radium-226 and their biological properties, and the relative quantities of each. I am going to go out on a limb here and come to the conclusion that you don't have a clue about this matter. So I will answer my own question.

Radium-226 behaves almost EXACTLY like Strontium-90 in biological systems. This means, counselor, that Radium is deposited in Skulls and Bones (since I know that your other obsessions involve this morphological structures and that baby teeth or just one of your ossifying interests.)

Now I will provide one of thousands of links on the Internet that include this statement or statements like it:

"Every square mile of surface soil, to a depth of 6 inches, contains approximately 1 gram of radium, which releases radon in small amounts to the atmosphere (Weast1980). The ambient outdoor radon level goes through a daily cycle of concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 3.50 pCi radon-222/L (1.11 to 130 Bq/m3)of air with the average level in the United States being about 0.3 pCi radon-222/L (11.1 Bq/m3) of outdoor air (Martin and Mills 1973).The amount of naturally occurring radon released to the atmosphere is increased in areas with uranium and thorium ore deposits and granite formations, which have a high concentration of natural uranium."

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp145-c4.pdf

The energy of decay for Radium-226 is 4.871 MeV (where Mev stands for million electron volts.) Moreover, Radium 226 decays to Radon 222 which has a decay energy of 5.590 Mev. Radon-222 in turn decays rapidly to Polonium-218 of 6.118 Mev. Polonium-218 decays even more rapidly than Radon to give Lead-214 with an output of 6.115 Mev. Lead-214 decays rapidly to Bismuth 214 rapidly with a decay energy of 1.024 MeV. Bismuth-214 decays rapidly to give Polonium-214 with a decay energy of 3.272 MeV. Polonium-214 rapid decays with an astonishing 7.833 MeV to lead-210 to give lead-210, a radioactive isotope that has a half-life of over 22 years, so we'll stop here, ignoring the energy output of Bismuth-210 and Polonium-210 as they decay to the stable lead-206. - I'll cut you a break. Let's sum (this involves the mathematical operation called addition) the total decay energy resulting from one atom of Radium-226 deposited in a skull or (other) bone - noting that every human being on the planet that has ever lived since the first member of the homo genus first walked the earth has had some Radium in their Skulls, bones or baby teeth.

Here we go: 4.871+5.590+6.118+6.115+1.024+3.272+7.833 = 34.823 MeV per atom of Radium 226, ignoring Bismuth-210 and Polonium-210 decays.

Here is the decay energies of Strontium-90 and the other radioactive isotope in its decay chain, Yttrium-90 before this chain terminates in stable (non-radioactive) Zirconium-90: 0.546 Mev (Sr-90) and 2.282 MeV for a grand total of 2.828 MeV.

The difference (this involves a mathematical operation known as subtraction) is 34.823-2.828 = 31.955 MeV less for Strontium-90 than for Radium 226.

Now lets get to the punch line. There is ONE AND ONLY ONE method of preventing the formation of this horrible horrible horrible horrible problem of Radium-226 deposition in Skulls and Bones and Baby Teeth: Destroy the source of Radium-226: Uranium-238 (via energetic decays to Radium-226 through Thorium-234, Protactinium-234, Uranium-234, and Thorium-230)! How do you destroy Uranium-238?

There is ONE AND ONLY ONE way: Fission it after converting it to Plutonium-239.

If you fission Plutonium-239 with thermal neutrons, you will get, 2% of the time an atom of that awful awful awful awful awful skull and bones and baby teeth concentrating Sr-90, and 98% of the time you will not get Sr-90.

http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/CoN/nuc/S/Sr90.shtml

This means that for every atom of Sr-90 you make, you will prevent the occurrence of 98 atoms of Radium-226 that could be deposited in skulls and bones and baby teeth! And for every atom of Radium-226 you will prevent you will prevent the occurrence of (let's count 'em; counting is the mathematical operation of generating integers by adding one to another integer starting with one) 12 other radioactive and very energetic isotopes. In fact, the quantity of Strontium-90 on the planet right now, as I pointed out in my earlier post, is dwarfed, absolutely dwarfed, by the concentration of its chemical cogener, Radium-226.

Now I will address anyone who reads this post who may actually know some science:

I think that of all the objections raised to the use of nuclear energy, there is one that is seldom mentioned, in fact never mentioned: After about a thousand years of use of nuclear energy, the total radioactivity of the earth will begin to fall rather precipitously. As life has evolved in the presence of radioactivity, there may be very poorly understood negative consequences of this state of affairs. The idea is worthy of some consideration. On the other hand, we might well argue that if we do not immediately begin to expand our nuclear capacity, the continued existence of life on this planet (owing to the Greenhouse effect) might be in more jeopardy than it would be if we stayed at the current level of total radioactivity.

[seventhson]

11. It really pisses me off when I and respectable scientists are attacked

personally.

You (Nadir) said:

"The questions asked here were in response to an announcement by my current antagonist that he (she or it) was an "expert" on radiation because he was able to link to the website of www.radiation.org, where unfortunately, they don't seem to know anything at all about radiation."


I defy anyone to examine the site www.radiation.org and say with any credibility that these people "don't seem to know anything about radiation".

I have a minimal degree of expertise in some areas related to nuke power whicxhg are based on a number of things: I have worked with the whistleblowers. I have worked on Capitol Hill for a Congressman on an environmenatl subcommittee where I did rtesearch on nuclear safety issues, attended hearings on the subject and had access to the library of congress database - which I used extensively, I also worked in environmental medicine as an attorney determining causation of injuries in a corporation which utilized nuke elements.

The principal scientist at www.radiation.org is Dr. Ernest Sternglass who has been attacked relentlessly as a whistleblower by the Nuke industry (so much that they apparently have a whole pr team designed to attack him whewrever he attempts to publicize the truth about the fdangers of nukes - so I am not surprised at all about such transparent attacks on him here).

He is inter alia professor emeritus and founder of the Universtiy of Pittsburgh School of Medicnce Department of radiological physics.

He designed for Westinghouse (and holds many similar patents) the tubes which allowed the radio-television images of the first moon walk to be captured and broadcast


He was also the Director of the first Lunar Scientific Station Project for Westinghouse.


There are many other experts in their fields at www.radiation.org and so your transparent attempt to discredit them suggests that the reliability of ALL of your statements is questionable.


PS - unless you are registered at smirking chimp you cannot use the link - but it is a waste of air. I have been dogged by thesde guys trrying to promote their nuclear idealogy (the same one shared by Cheney and Bush) for years and the argument is always the same:

Nothing to see here . Move along. The radiation you are exposed to is perfectly safe so PLEASE keep paying your electric bills and enjoy it - and, oh, ighnore those swollen glands and that lump in your breast - it has NOTHING to do with us - it is obviously your lifestyle choices and your defective heredity!!!!

[treepig]

18. uh oh, here's another attack on your hero:

Comments on "Breast cancer: evidence for a relation to fission products in the diet".

Musolino SV.

For over 30 years, Ernest Sternglass (recently joined by Jay Gould) has claimed that large occurrences of health effects result from small exposures to ionizing radiation. A recent study published in the Journal claimed to show a "supralinear" dose-effect relationship versus curies per million persons. The authors of this article show that Sternglass and Gould did not follow accepted scientific methods, never calculated the dose equivalent to the population studied, misinterpreted the raw data, and did not evaluate any possible confounding factors that could influence the observed breast cancer mortality(treepig's commentary: one shudders to imagine what the paper would have been like if dr. strangeglass wasn't a respectable scientist and didn't hold himself to such "high" standards :freak: ) The reanalysis of the raw data shows that, while there may have been changes in the mortality patterns from breast cancer in the four geographical regions reported, Sternglass and Gould failed to demonstrate a relationship between the operational histories of the Haddam Neck, Millstone, and Indian Point reactors and breast cancer mortality.

Int J Health Serv. 1995;25(3):475-80; discussion 481-8

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7591376

[seventhson]

21. I told you there were shills for the industry who will say anything

but would YOU believe the scientists picked by Bush and Cheney who do things like debunk global warming or talk about "killer trees". NOT ME. They are untrustworthy skunks. Sternglass has no profit motive and is motivated by love of humanity - not greed.

The problem ALWAYS is (and the industry's defense ALWAYS is - just like the tobacco industry): SO? The area around the nuke plants has HIGHER incidents of breast cancer. So WHAT? Pove they are related or shut up.


well - the way to prove it is to test the baby teeth from the children of the mothers who resided in the area and see if they were exposed. But still, from a legal perspective -- like in the movie "A Civil Action" based on a true story - the INDUSTRY will always claim THIS RADIATION did not cause THIS CANCERUS Breast. Causation is always at issue and easy for the nuke industry to posit asd a defense because tumours and defects to not "ANNOUNCE" wehat triggered them. But we KNOW that radiation DOES trigger these cancers.

That is the legal defense: so WHAT if we exposed you to toxic levels of carcinogenic cancercausing and mutragenic radioisotopes in your air, water, food and soil? You can't prove you died because of it.

Fact is, though, despite the industry hacks that attack Sternglass and Gould (an epidemiologist with preeminent credentials), the evidence is slowly getting collected - despite proponents and purveyors of nuclear death.

I understand now what with the homeland security ties of the organizations who promote nuke power and management this subject gets so much "play" here - and why there is such skill and method to the rebuttals

somebody must be worried that others are believing the truth FINALLY and are waking up to the lies of Halliburton, Bechtel, Westinghouse, General Electric and all - the purveyors of nuclear death and the most powerful gestapo in the world.

[seventhson]

34. A good example of the problem of causation

children near nuke plants in new york were found to have higher levels of strontium 90 (only made by man made means). The nuclear company'r response was" it wasn't OUR radiation - it must be from China

see - the chinese were doing atmospheric nuke testing and the radiation was blowing all the way to new york

if your child is shown to have leukemia or you suffer a spontaneous abortion - and your children have tested high for strontium 90 (meaning they were exposed in utero and hence you were exposed as well) - then which radiation can you PROVE caused the cancer, the spontaneous abortion or any other problem.
Or how do you know you didn't eat some irradiated produce grown downwind or using the waters of brookhaven or lawrence livermore, etc.

In this way the whole industry is obfuscating and getting away with mass murder.

[PVnRT]

41. And I get tired

of people having a knee-jerk reaction whenever the word "nuclear" is mentioned around here. Never mind that as of right now, it's the only good alternative source of energy we have for large-scale, affordable energy production.

[GATOR MONROE]

35. Americas chernobyl ?

Before Three Mile Island there was Rocketdyne '59

[Kool Kitty]

38. Welcome, GATOR.

I just looked that up and-YIKES. I hadn't ever heard of this accident. Thanks!

[InkAddict]

39. OMG, I once lived in that 10-mile zone

We got the big green sign for the window: "We have been notified." and the little booklet. 1)Tune in and follow directions; 2)Evacuation checklist; 3)Leave your pets behind; there's no room at the inn. Now residents probably all have little prophylactic pills too.

In accordance w/regulations, the BIG GREEN SIGN was passed on to the new owners (hehehe). Got more bad rads from the neighbors, at least one of whom enjoyed building demos of things that blow up, right in front of the children no less, so had to go ASAP!